> After consulting BDAG, Blass-DeBrunner, Moulton's Analytical Lexicon, and
> three or four other basic grammars and aids I have some questions. BDAG
> lists the neuter 3rd declension ELEOS, -OUS, TO and a later Greek form
> ELEOS, hO. I assume that this is a second declension masculine paralleling
> the two forms Moulton lists: ELEOS, -OUS, TO and ELEOS, -OU, hO. Bl-D #51
> discusses the two forms and, if I read it correctly, also seems to imply
> that ELEOS, hO is a second declension masculine noun. Based on all of this
> ELEON would seem to be a masculine accusative singular form as Moulton
> labels it. So, how do we know that ELEON is nominative? Bl-D does mention
> the variant, but unless I looked there first how would I have known?
> Everything else points to accusative. Is one key that KATAKAUCAOMAI normally
> takes a genitive form for a direct object? Where did Steve come up with
> ELEON as a 2nd declension neuter? I found nothing that listed the form
> ELEON, -OU, TO. Are there three forms of this word: ELEOS, -OUS, TO,
> ELEOS, -OU, hO, and ELEON, -OU, TO?

I was giving the MT the benefit of the doubt, since the -ON ending may be
neuter singular nominative and the masculine singular accusative is
practically unintelligible here. First, as I mentioned earlier,
KATAKAUCAOMAI takes a genitive object. Second, there is no justification for
the idea "mercy *rather than* judgment," since the bare genitive won't
sustain this meaning. Finally, the interplay between the two clauses yields
the idea that the person who shows no mercy will be judged without mercy;
however, for the one who does show mercy, that mercy will triumph over
judgment since merciless judgment is only reserved for those who show no
mercy.
--